"I mean this is hardly surprising, and replicates the same international findings, that mental health in LGBTQ populations is poor for those in unsupportive environments with high levels of prejudice and stigma, but improves with higher levels of social support.
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-023-05202-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-024-00201-9
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-16034-7
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382043743_Community_belonging_and_acceptance_is_this_the_antidote_to_shame_and_societal_discrimination_An_exploration_of_LGBTQ_individuals'_attendance_at_pride_and_their_mental_health
https://time.com/6972292/anti-lgbtq-policies-have-an-alarming-effect-on-youth-mental-health/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08862605221108087
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266723003122 "
Would you like to talk us through each of these studies rather than doing your usual just plonking what you have googled onto a post?
For instance, why do you feel the experience of homosexual and bisexual people in China, a country which has been well publicised for its poor human rights record, is comparative to non-binary people in Scotland who have access to a great deal of support? Or was it just that it discussed 'minority stress' and you felt you could leverage that to make it relevant?
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-023-05202-z
Can you please provide an accessible link for this paper, or are we just to make assumptions from the first one and a bit paragraphs?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-024-00201-9
And of course a group who has been affirmed, meaning that they have received positive attention, including special days just for them to be celebrated are going to feel affirmed and happy as per this link. I doubt that any one would have felt that this hypothesis would be disproved. However, that the paper discusses the 'affirmation of identities' for 'cisgender' people leaves this paper rather lacking in clarity.
What is a cohesive cisgender identity that all these people share to be grouped as such? Because reading this study, it hasn't provided definitions and then it briefly posits that some 'cisgender' males feel less affirmed because of their 'feminine' presentation and that might be the reason that cisgender males have poor mental health compared to that group who has been affirmed.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-16034-7
And I don't think that this paper below can be considered to be anything but a collected of positive attitudes towards Pride. It was a self selecting group at 7 Pride events which means collecting the feedback at a time when there is also maximum positive feelings about the event. There was no intention of finding out what Pride means to LGBT+ people who did not attend those Pride events. Can you explain why this paper is to be considered anything other than the collecting of positive experiences?
Do you think this should be considered a paper that describes the general population of LGBT+ people? Why?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382043743_Community_belonging_and_acceptance_is_this_the_antidote_to_shame_and_societal_discrimination_An_exploration_of_LGBTQ_individuals'_attendance_at_pride_and_their_mental_health
Why does this Trevor Project survey keep being presented as evidence to support affirmation to prevent suicide? Surely by now it has been regarded as misleading ?
https://time.com/6972292/anti-lgbtq-policies-have-an-alarming-effect-on-youth-mental-health/
Why have you attempted to leverage the experience of people with same or both sex orientations that are not heterosexual to support those of non-binary people? There is a segment of people who are non-binary who will fit into this group but why are you leveraging the axis of sexual orientation to explain generalised experience of people with transgender identities?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08862605221108087
This final review is just another that attempts to measure the issues faced by two different groups. How can this study develop an accurate understanding when it is looking at issues such as 'laws and policies' of the two groups. What laws and policies in the USA are discriminating against people who are same sex or both sex attracted?
It starts off with this:
'In terms of measurement types, 58 (59%) of 98 studies measured LGBTQ+ structural stigma via either a single law or policy (eg, constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, lack of a law requiring access to transgender-related medical care) '
Can you please point out why these two issues above should be considered together for the purpose of evaluation? One, banning same sex marriage, is an established illegitimate discrimination, and the other is a demand that is unsupported by evidence.
And by the way, Pachenkis is one of the authors of this paper was forced to correct his conclusion in a paper that attempted to state that transgender affirming health care treatments improved patient's mental health. Surely, you checked the authors of the papers you have linked to support your post?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266723003122
I don't believe anyone denies that people with transgender identities have poor mental health. However, I would disagree that simply affirming someone's philosophical belief as if it is materially real is going to lead to long term improvement of mental health. And I would also disagree that short term improvement of mental health should be considered the ideal, to the detriment of long term mental health considerations.
Does it not concern you that your links don't discuss the long term mental health improvement of the group of people the OP refers to? And does it not concern you that LGB people are being politically leveraged by people with transgender identities who may not be LGB at all?